1    

Gaul, conversation and youth genre(s) in Java1

Howard Manns Monash University

Abstract This paper provides a nuanced understanding of Bahasa Gaul ‘the language of sociability’. It does so by examining more than 25 hours of casual youth conversations in East Java. I show how Bahasa Gaul is used to construct and respond to Indonesian youth discourse in conversation. I position the discussion with regard to two related notions: intersubjectivity and indexicality. Youth discourse is firstly shown to be patterned and sequential. Speakers use Bahasa Gaul to boldly enact and respond to stances when negotiating intersubjectivity. Secondly, speakers are shown to invoke a Jakarta ‘voice’ to enact stances which are bold, cheeky and even potentially offensive. However, these stances are often performed rather than merely spoken. Performance simultaneously positions these stances within overlapping frames of irony and ramai ‘noisiness’. These frames are shown to be essential to the construction of the social category gaul in contemporary Java.

Introduction

Gaul, literally ‘social’, has emerged as the most discussed youth identity in post-Suharto

Indonesia. Gaul is at the core of the struggle of young middle class urbanites to find their

place in contemporary Indonesia. Smith-Hefner (2007, p. 185) analyses gaul as an identity

that articulates the “desire of Indonesian youth for new types of social belongings through

friendships that are more egalitarian and interactively fluid, as well as more personally

expressive and psychologically individualised”. Among other things, gaul emphasises

informality, self-confidence and cool cosmopolitanism (Smith-Hefner, 2007). Gaul youth are

upwardly mobile and outwardly looking (Smith-Hefner, 2007). Moreover, they view upward

economic success as being inextricably linked to the outward construction of a sizable and

diverse social network (Manns, 2011).

Bahasa Gaul ‘the language of sociability’ is an important resource for the

construction of a gaul identity. Jakarta and a Jakarta-centric mass media industry are the

                                                                                                                         1  This paper has benefited greatly from conversations and correspondences with Julie Bradshaw, Novi Djenar, Robert Englebretson, Michael Ewing, Simon Musgrave, Catur Siwi Dia Rachmatika and Nancy Smith-Hefner. However, none of these individuals have seen this paper nor should my gratitude here be interpreted as their support for the ideas herein. Any mistakes or infelicities remain my own.

   

2    

primary sources for Bahasa Gaul for Indonesian youth. Jakarta has long been the reference

point for upwardly and outwardly looking youths throughout Indonesia (see, among others,

Errington, 1986; Oetomo, 1990; Adelaar & Prentice, 1996; Sneddon, 2003, 2006; Ibrihim,

2007; Smith-Hefner, 2007). Bahasa Gaul includes styles borrowed from the colloquial

variety of Indonesian spoken by educated Jakartans (cf. Sneddon, 2006). It also includes

mostly ephemeral abbreviations, lexical items and idiomatic expressions popularised by the

mass media. Bahasa Gaul’s features will be described in greater detail below, as will the

relationship between Bahasa Gaul and Jakarta Indonesian.

Bahasa Gaul has been described in a general sense (e.g. Smith-Hefner, 2007; Manns,

2010) but few researchers (e.g. Djenar, 2008, 2012; Djenar & Ewing, 2012) have

demonstrated how its use is patterned or structured. The current paper explores how Bahasa

Gaul is used in casual youth conversations in Malang, East Java. In doing so, I show how

use of Bahasa Gaul is patterned and positioned within a structured cognitive framework.

Specifically, I show how gaul styles are selected at key points within conversations to enact

stances. It is these stances, I argue, as much as the selection of the styles themselves, that

enable young speakers to construct gaul as a social category. Less explicitly, but nonetheless

importantly, this paper informs debates as to the impact of Jakarta language styles on

urbanites outside of Jakarta. This, in turn, may contribute to an understanding of the

historical emergence of a labelled language variety (cf. Agha, 2003; Johnstone, Andrus &

Danielson, 2006), namely Colloquial Indonesian (cf. Sneddon, 2001; Englebretson, 2003,

2007; Ewing, 2005).

This paper will be of interest to those engaged with the Indonesian language on a

theoretical and/or pedagogical level. It will also be relevant to researchers who explore youth

as a social category in Indonesia and beyond. Yet, this paper’s keenest audience will be those

concerned with genre and generic variation. Genre is a useful concept for understanding the

   

3    

transnational and transglobal flow of language. For example, the hip hop genre has its roots

in the African American community. Consequently, African American English is a critical

resource for indexing hip hop. However, researchers have shown that agentive speakers in

places like Japan (Pennycook, 2003), Nigeria (Omoniyi, 2009) and Australia (O’Hanlon,

2006) do not adopt African American English wholesale. Rather, they adopt elements of the

source African American culture and mix them with local styles to create a simultaneously

local and global self.  

In a similar manner, this paper shows how local Javanese youth orient to the national

gaul phenomenon through generic practices in conversation. Conversation is arguably a

diffuse genre but it is a genre nonetheless (Coupland, 2007). Genres may be defined as

“culturally recognised, patterned ways of speaking, or structured cognitive frameworks for

engaging in discourse” (Coupland, 2007, p. 15). Along these lines, Coupland (2007, p. 15)

posits a participant-focused view of genre:

[The main criterion for genre is] that participants have some significant awareness, as part of their cultural and communicative competence, of how the event-types they are engaging with are socially constituted ways of speaking.

The current paper discusses this awareness in terms of the dialogic organisation of

conversation (cf. Bakhtin, 1981). Dialogic in this case refers to how every utterance (or

indeed language feature) takes its meaning from prior utterances and/or prior uses of the same

utterance (Du Bois, 2007). In other words, conversation participants are continuously

drawing on and reacting to the words of others. The dialogic nature and use of Bahasa Gaul

will be made clearer throughout this paper. This clarification, in turn, will lead to a

discussion of how Bahasa Gaul indexes a socially constituted way of speaking in Malang.

However, it is firstly essential to operationalise a definition for Bahasa Gaul as it pertains to

this paper.

   

4    

Bahasa Gaul

There is firstly a distinction to be made between bahasa gaul in the general sense and Bahasa

Gaul in the canonical sense. Boellstorff (2004, p. 189) perhaps best encapsulates the sense of

general bahasa gaul when he dubs it “[t]he language of association and interaction”. This is

the language that Indonesians use among themselves to interact in informal contexts, and it

takes many forms depending on the interlocutors or context. For example, among the Malang

working class, bahasa gaul is Javanese and a local ludling known as bahasa walikan ‘front-

to-back language’. Among the middle class, bahasa gaul is typically Javanese, a variety of

Indonesian or a mix of both.

Bahasa Gaul in the canonical sense is less straightforward. The application of labels

to language varieties in a diffuse and/or changing speech community is problematic

(Errington, 1985). For instance, in Malang, many would label the variety of Indonesian

spoken by the middle class above Bahasa Gaul, others Jakarta Indonesian, and still others a

variety of national, colloquial Indonesian. Malang’s sociolinguistic ecology is shifting and

this is illustrated by focusing on the Jakarta transitive suffix –in in Malang. Ewing (2005)

calls the Jakarta-provenance suffix –in a “robust marker of informal style” in Colloquial

Indonesian. However, Manns (2011) showed that Malang speakers were generally aware of

the suffix’s Jakarta provenance but disagreed about its social value. Most considered –in to

have become part of a national, colloquial Indonesian in line with Ewing’s observations. Yet,

most people also cited its links to Bahasa Gaul. Some believed this suffix was exclusively

linked to Bahasa Gaul, and at least one participant considered its use to be a trend which had

already passed. The lack of agreement on –in mirrors views of Bahasa Gaul in Malang and

this leads to the need to operationalise a definition for the current paper.

Some language styles may be categorised as Bahasa Gaul styles without controversy

in Malang. These uncontroversial styles include ephemeral abbreviations, blends, lexical

   

5    

items and idiomatic expressions, which are included in popular and widely available

dictionaries (e.g. Sahertian, 2001; Emka, 2007; Haikal, 2007). For instance, PD, pronounced

pede, is an abbreviation for percaya diri ‘to believe in oneself’. BT, pronounced bete, is an

English-derived abbreviation of ‘bad tempered’ and means ‘to be in a bad mood’ when used

as Bahasa Gaul. Youth frequently learn these styles from Jakarta-based mass media outlets,

actors and musicians. Bahasa Gaul in this sense draws on a number of sources including

homosexual argot, English and Prokem (Smith-Hefner, 2007), the latter an argot associated

with gangsters and criminals (Rahardja & Chambert-Loir, 1988).

Some language styles are more controversially labelled Bahasa Gaul for the purposes

of this paper. As noted above for -in, there is disagreement in Malang about how language

styles with Jakarta provenance are viewed (i.e. Bahasa Gaul, Jakarta Indonesian or

Colloquial Indonesian). For the purposes of this paper, any style viewed locally as having

provenance in Jakarta but in use in Malang is labelled Bahasa Gaul. This includes, but is not

limited to, the aforementioned suffix, the discourse markers deh and dong and the pronouns

gué and lo (alternatively gua and lu). It will be shown throughout this paper that these

Jakarta-provenance styles are often selected for and in response to gaul-related stances.

However, unlike the more ephemeral Bahasa Gaul styles discussed in the previous paragraph,

the impact of Jakarta Indonesian styles may be more lasting. Djenar (2012, p. 49) writes,

“[t]hat the colloquial Jakartan Indonesian has had a significant influence on the language of

urban youth is unquestionable”. This is indeed the case in Malang. Diachronic studies may

show that the Bahasa Gaul styles of contemporary Malang have become the Colloquial

Indonesian styles of future. This makes the current paper’s categorisation of these styles as

Bahasa Gaul both apt and useful.

Some work has been done on the functions of Bahasa Gaul styles and their relevance

to gaul identity. Smith-Hefner (2007) provides a thorough description of Bahasa Gaul as

   

6    

well as a preliminary description of its functions. Among other things, she finds that young

Indonesians frequently used Bahasa Gaul to discuss taboo topics. For example, a young

Indonesian going out on a date might be warned by friends to buy a safeting ‘condom’, so he

or she won’t end up MBA, an abbreviation meaning ‘married by accident’. Smith-Hefner

(2007) and Manns (2010) have shown that plesetan, literally ‘slip of the tongue’, is an

important means through which youth exhibit their creative linguistics abilities. Plesetan is a

punning and word game in which speakers creatively manipulate words and meanings

through word blending or the manipulation of sounds (Jurriëns, 2009). Manns (2010) found

that online chatters would often engage in plesetan to poke fun at one another. For instance,

in one example, one chat forum participant suggested that the men in the forum were romeo

‘romantically inclined’. A third participant followed this comment by playfully suggesting:

romeo = rombongan meong ‘a group of cats’.2

Thus, the youth identity gaul and its associated language styles have been moderately

well-described. This section has presented some of this research and an operationalised

definition of Bahasa Gaul as it pertains to this paper. I now move to show how the use of

Bahasa Gaul is structured and positioned within a cognitive frame. Following recent trends

in sociolinguistics, this is done by discussing Bahasa Gaul with reference to stance,

intersubjectivity and indexicality. This paper will show how Malang youth construct the

social category gaul through stance-taking with Bahasa Gaul. As noted above, these stances

will be discussed in terms of dialogicality. Du Bois (2007, p. 140) writes:

Dialogicality makes its presence felt to the extent that a stancetaker’s words derive from, and further engage with, the words of those who have spoken before—whether immediately within the current exchange of stance utterances, or more remotely along the horizons of language and prior text as projected by the community of discourse.

                                                                                                                         2  Meong also means ‘to make love’ in homosexual argot. Thus, an alternative reading of this could be ‘group of people having sex’.

   

7    

These stances will be shown to be dialogically structured and sequenced through the notion

of intersubjectivity. These stances will be dialogically positioned with regard to prior text,

communities of discourse and cognitive frames through indexicality. The result will be a

more nuanced understanding of Bahasa Gaul and its use.

Stance, intersubjectivity & indexicality

Stance has become a productive analytical tool for studies of style and stylistic variation

(Jaffe, 2009). Du Bois (2007, p. 163) provides a useful and well-cited working definition of

stance:

[s]tance is a public act by a social actor, achieved dialogically through overt communicative means, of simultaneously evaluating objects, positioning subjects (self and others), and aligning with other subjects, with respect to any salient dimension of the sociocultural field.

Social categories are built around common stances through social practice as discussed above

(Eckert, 2012). These stances are indexed locally in discourse through the use of linguistic

and non-linguistic styles drawn from the wider community (Eckert, 2012). Repeated stances

can emerge as stabilised repertoires of styles linked to situations and/or social identities

(Ochs, 1990; Bauman, 2004; Johnstone, 2009). Thus, with reference to the current paper, we

might expect youth concerned with gaul to take stances through the use of Bahasa Gaul.

Furthermore, certain styles, not originally gaul, may come to be linked to Bahasa Gaul due to

their repeated use for gaul-like stances.

Stance is closely aligned with and often described alongside intersubjectivity (e.g.

Kärkkäinen, 2003, 2007; Bucholtz, 2003; Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; Heritage & Raymond,

2005; Du Bois, 2007; Haddington, 2007; Rauniomaa, 2007; Du Bois & Kärkkäinen, 2012).

Du Bois (2007, p. 140) defines intersubjectivity as “the relation between one actor’s

subjectivity and another’s”. Within conversations, stances often emerge as a result of two

independent actors jointly engaging in stance-taking (Du Bois & Kärkkäinen, 2012). Du

Bois & Kärkkäinen (2012) propose that the intersubjective relationship between

   

8    

conversational utterances may be understood through the sequential perspective. The

sequential perspective is closely aligned with Conversation Analysis (CA) in that both

provide frames for understanding how social action is accomplished through turn-taking (Du

Bois & Kärkkäinen, 2012). Furthermore, CA concepts have been drawn on to inform the

sequential perspective. For instance, Haddington (2007) has shown how the notion of

‘preference’, a core CA concept, may inform studies of stance and intersubjectivity.

There are procedural and analytical differences between the sequential perspective

and CA in spite of their symbiotic relationship. The basic analytical component of CA is the

adjacency pair whereas in the sequential perspective it is stance lead/stance follow. The

adjacency pair emerges from observations that many social actions in conversation are

organised into pairs (or triplets), including questions-answers, greetings, leave-taking and

requests (Heritage & Clayman, 2010). The sequential perspective is concerned with the

negotiation of intersubjectivity within such adjacency pairs and thus how stance lead (one

speaker’s subjective stance) is reacted to and built upon by stance follow (another speaker’s

subjective stance).

For example, Du Bois (2007) uses what he calls ‘dialogic syntax’ to illustrate the

negotiation of intersubjectivity through stance lead and stance follow. Du Bois (2007, p.

140) writes: “[d]ialogic syntax looks at what happens when speakers build their utterances by

selectively reproducing elements of a prior speaker’s utterance”. He illustrates dialogic

syntax with the following example:

1 SAM; I don’t like those. 2 (0.2) 3 ANGELA; I don’t either. (p. 159) Here, Angela uses either to index an intersubjective relation between Sam and herself. In this

case, this relation is a shared negative evaluation of an object. Sam engages in what Du Bois

refers to as stance lead and Angela responds with a stance follow. Du Bois points out that the

   

9    

form either is required in the stance follow here, and this supports the role that this form

plays in “indexing the intersubjective relationship between two stances in dialogic

juxtaposition” (p. 161). The current paper will rely on stance lead and stance follow to

explore how intersubjective stances are negotiated in youth conversation. This, in turn, will

show how the use of Bahasa Gaul is to a certain degree structured.

Indexicality is a concomitant of stance in sociolinguistic investigations of identity.

Du Bois & Kärkkäinen (2012, p. 435) write, “[c]ombining indexicality with stance theory

yields a more dynamic understanding of the practices through which social actors constitute

sociocultural constructs, such as identity and epistemic authority”. Studies of stance

frequently draw on Ochs’ (1992) notion of direct and indirect indexicality. Ochs (1992)

argues that linguistic variables normally viewed as directly linked to identities are, in fact,

indirectly related. This indirect relationship is mediated by stance, social events and social

acts (Ochs, 1992). For instance, Englebretson (2007) and Manns (2012) have shown that

non-Jakarta youth do not use Jakarta pronouns because they wish to directly index Jakarta

identity. Rather, these speakers select these pronouns to draw on stereotypical qualities of

Jakarta speakers, such as ‘coolness’, ‘toughness’ or ‘outspokenness’. In keeping with Ochs

(1992), Manns (2012) argues that stances like these enable Malang youth to indirectly index

gaul.

The concept of indexicality and the relevance of the Jakarta ‘voice’ in Malang are

developed in the current work. Kiesling’s (2004, 2009) notion of ‘interior/exterior’

indexicalities enables us to position the stances enacted with Bahasa Gaul within a structured

cognitive frame, namely gaul and its related practices. Kiesling (2009, p. 177) defines

exterior indexicality as “indexical meaning that is transportable from one speech event to

another, and connect[ed] to social contexts that perdure from one speech event to another, or

at least change very slowly” (Kiesling, 2009, p. 177). Interior indexicality, on the other hand,

   

10    

is “indexical meaning created within, and particular to, the speech event” (Kiesling, 2009, p.

177). In other words, this is the meaning created through the mobilisation of exterior

indexicality within the immediate frame.

Kiesling (2004, 2009) illustrates this concept by exploring the use of dude by

fraternity members at an American university. He finds dude carries an exterior indexicality

of ‘cool solidarity’. This is due to its indexical links to “counterculture, laid back stances of

so-called ‘surfers’ and ‘stoners’ that American men found attractive in the 1980s” (Kiesling,

2009, p. 178). Kiesling (2004) found that cool solidarity could be mobilised to various ends

at the interactional level and this is interior indexicality. For instance, he found that the form

dude might be used as an affective exclamation to focus attention on a key point in a

narrative. This is seen in the following example:

40 Pete: DUDE it was like boys in the hood man ai:n’t no: lie: 41 Hotdog: And they’re all they’re fucked up on crack, wasted 42 they’re all lookin’ at us they start comin’ to the car, 43 so Pete’s like FLOOR IT. 44 so I take off , and ,

(Kiesling, 2004, p. 294) Here, Pete selects dude to emphasise and evaluate a key point in a narrative about having

been lost in a poor, urban area in the middle of the night. In a different context, the form

dude may be mobilised as a “confrontational stance attenuator” (Kiesling, 2004, p. 292). In

other words, dude may be used to mitigate a potentially face-threatening act by keying the act

as non-serious. This is seen here:

44 Pete: Fuckin’ ay man. 45 Gimme the red Dave. Dude. (1.0) 46 Dave: No.

(Kiesling, 2004, p. 294) These interlocutors are playing Monopoly and Pete uses the bald imperative Gimme the red.

He adds dude to mitigate this imperative. In all, Kiesling (2004) notes five interactional

functions for dude and thus five ways in which exterior indexicality is mobilised to interior

ends.

   

11    

This paper will demonstrate how Bahasa Gaul is selected at key points within

conversations to enact stances. It is these stances, I argue, as much as the selection of the

styles themselves, that enable young speakers to construct gaul as a social category. In any

case, the conversational practices of Malang youth are shown to be dialogic and structured.

They are firstly dialogic in the sense that utterances are connected to the negotiation of

intersubjectivity and this will be outlined in the following sections. They are also dialogic in

the sense that speakers strategically use the semiotic potential imbued in Jakarta forms to

accomplish stances. This potential is discussed in the current paper in terms of exterior

indexicalities. Exterior indexicalities are referred to throughout this paper and their relevance

to gaul consolidated in the discussion and conclusion.

I explore here the use of Bahasa Gaul in casual conversations by 25 young, educated

Javanese individuals in Malang, East Java. More than 25 hours of casually-occurring

conversations among these middle class participants were recorded, transcribed and analysed.

In order to minimize the observer’s paradox (cf. Labov, 1972), I was not present during any

of the recordings. I drew on the sequential perspective and CA concepts to analyse the data.

It has been noted that CA typically requires that an analyst have native speaker intuition

regarding forms and functions (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1988). Thus, all analytical findings

were cross-checked with research assistants and the participants themselves whenever

possible.

Bahasa Gaul and interpersonal stances

Stances taken with Bahasa Gaul are often nuanced and complex in terms of indexicality and

this will be discussed throughout the remainder of this paper. However, it is firstly important

to note that stances enacted with Bahasa Gaul are, in fact, occasionally taken up as acts of

(gaul) identity (cf. Le Page & Tabouret-Keller, 1985). In other words, in Ochs’ terms above,

these stances are interpreted as being directly indexical of gaul. These are stances of

   

12    

interpersonal alignment arguably forged through the shared consumption and use of Bahasa

Gaul texts. These stances are normally performed rather than merely spoken. Performing a

Bahasa Gaul utterance often entails speaking it more loudly and quickly and drawing out the

pronunciation of the final syllable. However, some Bahasa Gaul utterances have

idiosyncratic pronunciations based on prior use, for instance, in the mass media. Performed

stances are sometimes taken up through the performed repetition of the form. This is the case

in the following example:

(1) 1 Sheila: Habis itu Finish that 2 aku dapet kuliah di Malang 1SG got university in Malang

3 GITU DE::H

like.that DM

4 Catrine: GITU DE::H hehe like.that DM

Sheila: After finishing that, I started studying in Malang, it’s like that. Catrine: Like that, hehe.

The discourse marker deh strongly urges a listener to believe a proposition or complete an

action. When performed, the Jakarta discourse markers deh and dong, the latter of which is

discussed below, are spoken with a strong falling intonation with a slight upward lilt at the

end. In the example above, Sheila describes how she came to study in Malang and finishes

the utterance by performing the Bahasa Gaul idiom gitu deh ‘that’s the way it is/was, I tell

you’. This may be viewed as a stance lead, albeit an uncontroversial one. In other words, we

may expect that Catrine will not question Sheila’s subjective narrative unless she knows or

suspects that it isn’t true. In the stance follow in line 4, Catrine repeats Sheila’s performed

act of identity and laughs. Repetition in Javanese culture means more than mere agreement

or acknowledgement of information (Keeler, 2001). It has the same effect as an English

   

13    

speaker saying you bet (Keeler, 2001). Repetition for interpersonal alignment is also noted in

the following example:

(2) 1 Catur: Enak diajak ngobrol delicious PT-invite AT-chat

2 kayak kita DO::NG Hen. like.this 2PL DM VOC

3 Henny: IYA IYA LAH of course

4 Catur: IYA IYA LAH LAH.

of course

Catur: It’s nice to be invited to talk like this, Hen. Henny: Of course! Catur: Of course!

Catur performs the form dong in line 2 in what is a clear stance of interpersonal alignment.

Catur presents the subjective view that it is great to be able to talk with Henny in a stance

lead. She presents this subjective evaluation as obvious through the use of dong. The

discourse marker dong strongly asserts the truth of an utterance. It functions as a stronger

assertion of the truth than the form deh. Henny recognises this stance as an assertion of

interpersonal alignment. Henny responds with the performed idiomatic expression iya iya

lah ‘of course’ in the stance follow in line 3. This expression was in common use at the time

of this study due to its use on a popular television talk show called Cerewis, literally

‘talkative’. Catur repeats the idiomatic expression, and thus, completes a three-turn act of

interpersonal alignment.

Stances of interpersonal alignment such as these often occur within the genre of

curhat literally, ‘pouring out of one’s heart’. Curhat is an informal genre of conversation in

which a speaker discusses a troubling personal issue with an intimate friend. This is seen in

the following example:

   

14    

(3) 1 Jenny: Kayaknya lebih dewasaan kamu seem-STM more adult-COMP 2SG 2 sama Sally DE::H with Sally DM 3 Henny: IYA IYA LAH of course 4 secara gitu lho manner like.that DM Jenny: It seems like you are more mature than Sally.

Henny: Of course. In this way, I am.

This dyad comes at the end of a curhat. In the prior text, Henny has been confiding to Jenny

that her sister is in a relationship with an immature boy who may be cheating on her. The

form deh here is performed by Jenny line 2’s stance lead to assert that Henny is more mature

than her sister. Henny follows this stance by performing the idiomatic expression noted

above, iya iya lah. Thus, Henny follows the use of deh with a stance of interpersonal

alignment.

We may understand interpersonal stances and intersubjectivity here on two levels.

Firstly, Coupland (2007, p. 154) points out that the performative use of a form:

instigates, in and with listeners, processes of social comparison and re-evaluation (aesthetic and moral) focused on the real and metaphorical identities of speakers, their strategies and goals, but spilling over into re-evaluation of listeners’ identities, orientations and values.

The performance of Bahasa Gaul arguably instigates reflection among participants about

identity and membership in the ‘imagined community’ of gaul (cf. Anderson, 1983). Thus, a

stance lead of a performed Bahasa Gaul utterance occasionally results in a stance follow of a

performed Bahasa Gaul utterance (often a repetition of the same utterance). Secondly, the

performance of Bahasa Gaul arguably frames utterances with regard to the Javanese concept

ramai. The concept of ramai ‘crowded, noisy’ (rame in Javanese) is an important component

of Javanese society (C. Geertz, 1960; H. Geertz, 1961; Wolfowitz, 1991; Sutton, 1996;

Keeler, 2001; Wallach, 2008). Unlike in Western societies, ramai is often evaluated

   

15    

positively in Java (Sutton, 1996). With regard to spoken interaction, spontaneous

communication is viewed positively when it is ramai (Wolfowitz, 1991). Wolfowitz writes,

“[i]n ordinary conversation style, what is valued is a sense of liveliness and drama, so that

even rather unremarkable occurrences are given an air of excitement” (1991, p. 60). Ramai

may be viewed in terms of exterior indexicality and this will be returned to below.

Bahasa Gaul and dispreferred stances

Haddington (2007) draws on the CA notion of ‘preference’ in illustrating the structured

nature of intersubjectivity. Preference organisation is also a useful concept for discussing

stance and Bahasa Gaul. Bahasa Gaul is frequently selected for dispreferred responses or in

instances when a dispreferred response is expected from a listener. The discourse marker deh

is used for a dispreferred response in the following example:

(4) 1 Wendy: Jauh far

2 Ari: Jauh, Wendy, gitu? far VOC like.that 3 Kayaknya nggak jauh DEH, Wendy like-STM NEG far DM VOC

Wendy: It’s far. Ari: Far, Wendy, yeah? It seems like it’s not far, Wendy.

Wendy expresses her view that a potential job is far from the bus station in the stance lead.

The preferred response in this example would be agreement. However, in the stance follow,

Ari first repeats Wendy’s response in line 2 before negating and modifying this response with

deh. Thus, Ari gives the dispreferred response of disagreement and selects the form deh to

urge Wendy to reconsider her evaluation that the job is in fact far from the bus station. In the

following example, the discourse marker deh is used by a speaker who expects and receives a

dispreferred response:

   

16    

(5) 1 Farzad: Perasaan kamu yo wes opinion 2SG yeah PRF

2 cerita DEH tell DM

3 Catrine: Bukan NEG

Farzad: What’s your opinion? Go ahead and tell me. Catrine: No.

Here, the interlocutors are discussing plans for an upcoming debate. The topic has turned to

the arrogance of the judges at a previous event. Farzad asks Catrine to speak directly and

honestly about her dislike for these judges in the stance lead. However, prevailing Javanese

cultural practices suggest that one should suppress the open expressions of negative feelings

(Mulder, 2007). Consequently, Farzad likely expects that Catrine will be hesitant to do so.

Therefore, he also selects deh to urge her to speak about the judges without reservation in the

stance lead in line 2. Catrine refuses and thus gives the dispreferred response in the stance

follow. A dispreferred response is given once again in the next example but this time with

the Bahasa Gaul idiomatic construction ngapain ‘what are you (I/we/he/she/they) doing?’:

(6) 1 Bibin: Yang jelas REL clear

2 besok Bibin pulang tomorrow 1SG go.home

3 Mia: Lho mbak DM VOC

4 Antum NGAPAIN sih 2SG AT-what-APP DM

5 pulang mbak? go.home VOC

Bibin: What is clear, is that I’m going home tomorrow. Mia: What, mbak? What are you doing going home, mbak?

   

17    

Bibin is excited about going home to visit her family in Madura, an island just north of Java,

and expresses this in the stance lead. The preferred response in this instance would perhaps

be an utterance in which Mia shares in Bibin’s excitement or asks her casually what she plans

to do. However, Mia confronts Bibin in the stance follow, albeit jokingly, to ask her why she

would want to go home. In addition to the idiomatic construction ngapain (line 4), Mia uses

a sassy voice intonation and the discourse marker sih to index that this is a playful

confrontation. The discourse marker sih in this instance has a similar meaning to the English

‘then’ as in ‘why would you want to go home, then?’

The use of Bahasa Gaul for dispreferred responses may be understood on two levels.

Firstly, as Englebretson (2007) and Manns (2012) have shown, non-Jakarta speakers may

adopt Jakarta styles to invoke certain attributes associated with their speakers. In this case,

speakers are arguably drawing on the perception that Jakarta speakers are outspoken and bold.

Middle class Jakartans are often described in terms of individualisme (Mulder, 2007; Wallach,

2008). In Indonesian, individualisme has a meaning more closely approximating the English

‘selfishness’ (Wallach, 2008). This often leads Jakarta elites to be viewed as arrogant

(Wallach, 2008). In a review of Jakarta society at the end of the New Order, Redana (1997, p.

141) lamented, “people aren’t embarrassed or modest any more, they only become rich, or

want to be spoken of as being rich”.3 This leads Jakarta forms to have an exterior

indexicality of ‘boldness’. Yet, such boldness may be problematic in Javanese

communication, which is guided by an ideology of politeness and harmonious relations (cf. C.

Geertz, 1960; Wolfowitz, 1991; Keeler, 2001) and this leads to the second point of discussion.

These dispreferred stances are often though not always performed rather than merely

spoken. Thus, the observations made about performance above are also apt here. Coupland

(2007, p. 154) notes that performance of linguistics forms leads to “processes of social

                                                                                                                         3  Orang tidak lagi “malu,” sungkan, menjadi atau disebut kaya.      

   

18    

comparison and re-evaluation (aesthetic and moral) focused on the real and metaphorical

identities of speakers”. The selection and performance of Bahasa Gaul blurs the line

between the real and metaphorical identities. Malang youth are noted performing Bahasa

Gaul to project a certain level of irony. The selection of Bahasa Gaul enables participants to

do what Du Bois (1986) has called ‘speaking the culture’. Haiman (1998, p. 87), reviewing

Du Bois (1986), writes: “the speaker of formulaic utterances conceals or submerges his or her

true core self in order to ‘speak the culture’”. Speaking the culture through Bahasa Gaul

enables the enactment of stances which are strategically ironic. Bahasa Gaul enables a

speaker to index a shared membership in an imagined community (cf. Anderson, 1983) called

gaul. Speaking gaul culture enables participants to accomplish immediate goals by

exploiting the possibility that they are not to be interpreted literally. This enables such

stances to be accomplished without coming into conflict with existing Javanese cultural

practices. In fact, as was noted in the previous section, performance also brings stances

within a frame of ramai.

Bahasa Gaul and deontic stances

Deontic stances strongly urge belief or action on the part of a listener. For instance, the form

deh, referred to above, is more deontic than epistemic because it strongly and directly urges

belief or action on the part of a listener. It is more deontic in the sense that it enacts a stance

deriving from “subjective reaction and personal feelings” rather than epistemic knowledge

(Berman, 2004, p. 108). Thus, these stances have the potential to be face-threatening acts,

especially within Javanese culture as noted above.

Bahasa Gaul is used for deontic stances in a similar manner to dispreferred stances

above. In fact, examples (4) and (5) may be viewed as deontic in addition to being

dispreferred responses. Speakers draw on the perceived boldness of Jakartans while at the

same time blurring the line between author and utterance (cf. Clift, 1999). The suffix –in is

   

19    

often used in imperative, deontic stances as in the following example. Here, an anak soleh

‘devout Muslim’ speaker reminds a friend to buy her a religious souvenir on a trip:

(7) 1 Mia: Ayo mbak go.ahead VOC

2 beliin ane ma’ em buy-APP 1SG food.as.souvenir

Mia: Do it, mbak! Buy me some holy water!

The selection of –in marks this utterance as a playful and ironic stance lead. This utterance

may be interpreted at face value (Mia wants a souvenir) or as a joke (Mia does not want a

souvenir). In this example, it is highly likely that Mia wants a souvenir. Yet, the selection of

–in indexes a kind of ironic ambiguity which reduces the likelihood that this utterance will be

interpreted as face-threatening. In any case, the stance follow for a deontic stance is often

unremarkable. In short, the participants sometimes acquiesce and sometimes not. However,

participants are noted at times using Bahasa Gaul in a stance follow to counter the original

stance. This is seen in the following example:

(8) 1 Mia: Terus NGAPAIN? Jangan jangan ntar di sana   straight AT-what-APP don’t don’t later at there

2 DONG DONG DONG DONG nggak DONG   DM DM DM DM NEG DM

3   Bibin: hehe

  <laughter>

4   Mia: Dosennya ngomong apa? Itu apa lagi?   lecturer-DEF speak what that what again

5   Bibin: Bukan hanya DONG DONG. Kamu akan   Neg only DM DM 2SG FUT

6   merasakan bagaimana uh apa sibuknya.   AT-feel-APP how uh what busy-DEF

Mia: Right, what are you doing? Don’t go there later, duh, no duh. Bibin: <laughter> Mia: What will the lecturer say? What else? Bibin: It’s not a matter of ‘duh’. You’ll begin to experience how, uh, why things are busy.

   

20    

Here, Mia attempts to persuade Bibin from attending an event held by a lecturer. Mia

performs the Bahasa Gaul idiom dong dong dong to implore her not to attend in the stance

lead in line 1 (adding two additional dongs for extra emphasis). Dong dong dong was in

popular use at the time of this study. This was due to its use on the popular television talk

show Cerewis as with iya iya lah above. Dong dong dong conveys a strongly emphasised

‘duh, what were you thinking?’ as it is derived from the discourse marker dong. However, it

is performed rather than spoken and this blurs the line between speaker and utterance as

noted with the dispreferred responses above. The expression dong dong dong is normally

performed by pronouncing the three dongs quickly, like a bell. In doing so, the speaker often

pokes the listener or him or herself in the head with each dong. The playful nature of this

stance is seen in Bibin’s first stance follow, which is simply laughter. Mia further supports

her initial stance lead by asking Bibin what she expects to learn by attending the event. In the

subsequent stance follow, Bibin draws on the Bahasa Gaul idiom of the original stance lead

to indicate that it is not a matter of dong dong ‘duh, what are you thinking?’. She then

explains why it is not merely a matter of dong dong dong.

The suffix –in is often selected with the discourse marker dong in imperative, deontic

utterances. This is seen in the following example:

(9) 1 Radin: Dugem saya hanya sekali saja clubbing 1SG only one.time just

2 pergi ke dugem. go to clubbing

3 Catur: Gimana ceritain DO::NG!? how story-APP DM

Radin: As for my clubbing, I’ve only been to a nightclub one time? Catur: What was it like, tell me, will you!?

   

21    

Catur selects the suffix –in and dong here to implore Radin to discuss his clubbing experience.

The selection of both of these variables indexes a playful irony which in fact is strategically

focused. Catur truly wants Radin to discuss his experience but loosely cloaks this aim by

‘speaking the culture’. Catur performs this utterance using the playful voice intonation

described above. This enables Catur to index this stance with regard to boldness, ramai and

gaul. However, imperative utterances with the suffix –in do not need to be performed.

Example (9) is performed because of the presence of the discourse marker dong. Example

(7) above was not performed and this is the case for a majority of the imperative uses of –in.

Many of the observations made about dispreferred stances are equally as applicable to

deontic stances. The overlap between the two was noted at the start of this section. In a

general sense, speakers mobilise the exterior indexicality of ‘boldness’ to accomplish deontic

stances. Stance follow in relation to deontic stances was noted to be generally unremarkable.

However, some speakers are noted countering deontic stances with Bahasa Gaul in stance

follow. Within this section, examples (7), (8) and (9) included use of the suffix –in and there

are a few observations to make about the use of this suffix in Malang. This suffix is not often

performed in the manner described for other Bahasa Gaul styles. A full discussion of this

suffix is beyond the scope of the current paper. However, it is worth speculating in a general

sense on why this form may not be performed. Firstly, this may simply be due to its bound

nature. Most Bahasa Gaul forms are free morphemes and idiomatic expressions. They may,

as a result, more easily develop their own histories independent of other forms. Secondly, the

suffix –in may be more fully incorporated into the local variety of Indonesian than the other

forms. I earlier showed how there was disagreement in the metapragmatic commentary about

how the suffix –in should be viewed in Malang. Future studies may show whether this

variant becomes part of the local repertoire or drops away as at least one participant has

suggested.

   

22    

Bahasa Gaul and cheeky stances

I have implicitly been arguing that it is stances as much as the selection of Bahasa Gaul that

enables young speakers to construct gaul as a social category. This is perhaps clearest in the

use of Bahasa Gaul to enact ‘cheeky’ and self-confident stances. These stances include

tongue-in-cheek arrogance, insults and the use of constructed dialogues to claim to have

misbehaved. These stances are often performed rather than spoken, again blurring the line

between speaker and utterance. Both insult and tongue-in-cheek arrogance are illustrated in

the following example. Here, Tika is describing me, the researcher, to Samson. Samson and I

both come up at the ‘short’ by the end of the following exchange.

(10) 1 Samson: Ya… pasti sama aku yeah definitely same 1SG

2 tinggian dia pasti tall-COMP 3S definitely

3 Tika: IYA IYA LAH of course

4 Samson: Kurang ajar less study

5 Tika: Tapi… but

6 Samson: Tapi yang pasti kerenan GUÉ DONG

but REL definitely cool-COMP 1SG DM

Samson: Yeah, surely he’s taller than me.

Tika: Duh, of course!

Samson: That’s rude.

Tika: But…

Samson: But surely I’m cooler than him and you know it.

Tika takes a playful jab at Samson’s height in line 3 through the use of the Bahasa Gaul

expression iya iya lah. Rather than merely confirming that I am taller than Samson, she

emphasises that ‘of course’ this is the case. Samson takes offense (real or feigned) by saying

kurang ajar. This is literally ‘uneducated’ but it more accurately means something along the

lines of ‘that was uncalled for’. Kurang ajar is frequently selected in the stance follow to

   

23    

cheeky stance leads. Samson recovers his pride, partially at my expense, in line 6. He does

this by selecting gué to emphasise that he is ‘cool’ in comparison to me. He also adds a

performed dong to emphasise that this is the case. Samson is originally from Kediri and

attends university in Malang. However, he also works as a fashion model in Jakarta. In this

example, Samson’s selection of gué enables him to invoke his Jakarta lifestyle which

includes clubbing, modelling and other ‘cool’ activities (see Manns, 2012).

Cheeky stances are frequently insults but these are almost always performed rather

than spoken through Bahasa Gaul. It was argued that by performing Bahasa Gaul, speakers

simultaneously index ironic distancing and ramai ‘noisy, bustling’. Speakers are noted

exploiting this ambiguity to accomplish face-threatening stances, such as providing a

pejorative evaluation of a listener. For example, this speaker performs English and dong to

pejoratively evaluate a listener’s weight:

(11) 1 Minggir, awas AT-edge careful

2 SHOULD YOU CAN DO DO::NG should 2SG can do DM

3 ah katanya uh say-STM

4 tambah langsing add slim

5 ah rugi kamu uh effort 2SG

6 turun berapa kilo sih? go.down how.much kilogram DM

You’re coming up to the edge, be careful. You really should, uh, you said that you were going to get slimmer, uh, and how many kilos have you lost as a result?

Here, the speaker playfully warns his best friend that she should lose weight. The stylised

use of dong and English in line 2 enables the speaker to embed this subjective evaluation of

his listener within multiple layers of discourse. This strategy shifts the responsibility of

interpreting this stance to the listener. This stance is presented as a potential act of identity

   

24    

due to its performed forms. Yet, in actuality, this stance may be a very honest evaluation of

the listener presented as a Trojan horse.

Lastly, speakers often use Bahasa Gaul within constructed dialogues to claim to have

taken bold and self-confident stances with non-present adults. These stances, I argue, enable

a speaker to project the kind of rebellious image which is relevant to the construction and

substantiation of gaul identity. Tannen (2007) finds that ‘constructed dialogue’ is a more

accurate label for what has traditionally been called ‘reported speech’. She (2007, p. 17)

writes that “framing discourse as dialogue is not a ‘report’ at all; rather, it is the

recontextualisation of words in a current discourse”. The notion of constructed dialogue is

well-suited to the reporting of prior exchanges in Javanese discourse. Such reporting has

previously been labelled as ‘modelled speech’ in Javanese discourse (Keeler, 1987; Errington,

1998). Modelled speech is the direct quotation of conversations had with non-present others.

It is similar to English reported speech, but modelled speech more typically involves a full

shift to the kind of language used in the prior or hypothetical context.

Bahasa Gaul is often selected in constructed dialogue to playfully claim to have taken

bold stances where this is unlikely to have been the case. For example, the speaker in the

following extract describes an interaction with her mother:

(12) 1 Aku suruh mamaku

1SG influence mother-1SG

2 cariin DO::NG

look-APP DM

I tried to get my mother to do it, [I said] just look for it!

Here, Mery brags to a friend about how she demanded that her mother find a copy of a film

for her. It is not impossible, but improbable that Mery enacted such a strong stance with her

mother. The use of dong in line 2 enables Mery to project a sassy and self-confident persona

by virtue of this modelled stance taken with an adult and authority figure. Once again,

   

25    

speakers are able to draw on the ‘bold’ voice of Jakartans to enact stances in the immediate

context. Furthermore, these stances are performed rather than merely spoken and this frames

these stances as ramai. In other words, in both cases, speakers are able to mobilise exterior

indexicalities to interior ends. I consolidate and clarify the notion of exterior/interior

indexicalities in the concluding discussion below.

Discussion and conclusion

The dialogic nature of conversation and Bahasa Gaul has been illustrated throughout this

paper. Firstly, conversation is dialogic in the sense that speakers are responding to the

immediately preceding text. Conversation participants take subjective stances with regard to

another’s prior subjective stance. Intersubjectivity emerges as a result of two independent

actors jointly engaging in stance-taking (Du Bois & Kärkkäinen, 2012). The preceding

sections have shown how the use of Bahasa Gaul is patterned and sequenced in casual

conversations in Malang. Speakers select Bahasa Gaul in ‘stance lead’, among other things,

to invoke interpersonal alignment, persuade a hearer to accept a viewpoint or complete an

action or to present cheeky, pejorative evaluations of another. Conversation participants

respond with Bahasa Gaul in ‘stance follow’ to perform interpersonal alignment, present

dispreferred responses or to take cheeky stances of their own.

In any case, speakers draw on indexicality to enact these stances and this brings us to

the second understanding of the dialogic nature of conversation. Conversation is dialogic in

the sense that speakers draw on linguistic forms’ semiotic links to prior speakers and/or

contexts. Bakhtin (1981) has noted that part of the meaning of an utterance is its social

history, its social presence and its social future (Ochs, 1992; Coupland, 2001). Thus, an

utterance may have several different ‘voices’ (Ochs, 1992) and speakers activate these voices

in a context to enact stances. This paper draws on Kiesling’s notion of exterior indexicality

to show how the Jakarta voice is activated in conversations to enact stances. Furthermore,

this paper showed how these voices are performed rather than being merely spoken. This

   

26    

enables a metaphorical distancing between speaker and utterances. It also means the exterior

indexicality of ramai is activated. With this in mind, the notion of exterior indexicality

requires further discussion and argument. In sum, more needs to be done to show how

Bahasa Gaul and contemporary youth practices may be understood within cognitive frames

and this will be the purpose of the remainder of this paper.

The Jakarta ‘voice’ and its use by non-Jakartans have long been referred to in a

general sense. Smith-Hefner (2009) reviews Swastika who finds that “that in imitating

Jakartan speech, young people in the provinces aspire to the hip, modern, and cosmopolitan

lifestyle of those who live in metropolitan Jakarta”. Sneddon (2003, p. 155) notes, “[t]o

speak like a Jakartan is to be like a Jakartan: up-to-date, prosperous and sophisticated,

whatever the reality may be”. Englebreston (2007) and Manns (2012) demonstrate that in

addition to the hip, modern and sophisticated qualities associated with Jakarta Indonesian,

there is also a certain bold, self-confidence linked to the dialect. This boldness was

demonstrated again in the current paper with regard to Bahasa Gaul.

This paper introduced the notion of exterior indexicality and proposed the exterior

indexicalities of ‘boldness’ and ramai for the Malang context. There are multiple

indexicalities associated with any form. A form’s social history and social presence are

complex and there are indeed multiple voices attached to any form. I will close this paper by

expanding upon ‘boldness’ and ramai as exterior indexicalities and cognitive frames. I will

also introduce a third overarching indexicality related to gaul in Malang: enjoy aja. This

label is in part arbitrary but it will be shown that it encapsulates the contemporary gaul

experience in much the same way that keepin’ it real has become a mantra for hip hop (Cutler,

2003).

Taking as a starting point Englebretson (2007) and Manns (2012), this paper has

shown how speakers draw on the exterior indexicality of ‘boldness’ to enact stances. This

   

27    

indexicality was particularly useful for enacting cheeky stances. Bold stances like these

enable Malang youth to respond to and construct gaul as a social category. These stances

arguably empower local young people who wish “to declare their independence of traditional

expectations” (Smith-Hefner, 2007, p. 197). This is particularly the case in the enactment of

cheeky stances with adults. However, bold and self-confident stances enacted with Bahasa

Gaul ostensibly come into conflict with Javanese conversational norms which stress harmony

and freedom from imposition.

This leads many speakers to playfully perform these stances and this has

consequences for the stance and identity on two levels. Firstly, this enables a speaker to

index a certain degree of irony by inserting metaphorical distance between the self and

utterance. It was discussed above how this is relevant to the enactment of gaul identity.

However, secondly, and more relevant to the current discussion, the performance of a form

invokes the exterior indexicality of ramai ‘noisy, bustling’. It was noted above that ramai is

positively evaluated in Javanese culture and it is important to Javanese relationships. Special

events and ceremonies require ramai and in contemporary times this has come in the form of

large, loud speakers and amplification systems (Sutton, 1996; Keeler, 2001). Children

become socialised at a very young age to accept and even enjoy the chaos of ramai (C.

Geertz, 1960; Sutton, 1996). C. Geertz (1960, p. 49) writes, “[i]t is hoped, people say, that

the child will grow up liking the crowds, the helter-skelter, and the constant buzz of joking

conversation the Javanese call rame, which finds its prime exemplification in the market”.

Ramai is valued among Malang’s young Javanese. Participants present a positive

evaluation of ramai locations or behaviour (linguistic or otherwise) in the corpus and in

interviews. For instance, in the following example, taken from the corpus, Henny discusses

having fun in Malang. Henny points out that whether one has fun in Malang is dependent on

finding a location with a large number of young people and an atmosphere of ramai.

   

28    

(13) 1 Yo bisa aja sih yeah can just DM 2 enak yo delicious yeah

3 tergantung lokasinya juga kan depends location-DEF also DM 4 Iya makanya tuh yeah then-STM that

5 cari lokasi yang ramai look location REL noisy

6 yang banyak anak mudanya REL lots child young

7 kan itu a DM that DM

Yeah, you can have fun, it just depends on the location, you know? Yeah, like, you have

to find a location where it is noisy and there are lots of young people. It’s like that,

isn’t it?

Manns (2011, forthcoming) shows that young people prefer radio language which is spoken

loudly and quickly. This is one factor which motivates one announcer at a local youth radio

station to use what she calls in English her smiling voice in broadcasts. She uses a voice

which is louder, faster and higher in pitch than a normal speaking voice. Furthermore, she

lengthens many final syllables, especially in words which occur utterance-finally. This is

specifically in response to the popularity of ramai. Notably, the voice intonation used by the

announcer is indeed similar to the one adopted by the speakers in this paper. Thus, in sum,

speakers who perform Bahasa Gaul may be simultaneously responding to and constructing

gaul and Javanese identity. Performed stances are essential to positioning the self within

these gaul and Javanese frames.

In closing, I would like to suggest that youth practices may be viewed in terms of the

overarching concept of a single Bahasa Gaul expression: enjoy aja ‘just enjoy’. In addition

to being a Bahasa Gaul form, enjoy aja may be viewed as an exterior indexicality linked to

Bahasa Gaul forms more generally as well as a cognitive frame for understanding gaul

   

29    

stances. Enjoy aja has oft been referred to in metapragmatically-focused interviews I have

conducted (see Manns, 2011). It is most typically used to describe linguistic practices related

to ‘joking around’ or ‘having fun’. Enjoy aja can be traced to a popular advertising campaign

for the L.A. Light cigarette company. It has since gained popularity as an idiomatic phrase

linked to gaul. Unlike many of the more ephemeral gaul idioms (e.g., so what gitu lho ‘so

what, that’s just the way it is’), enjoy aja continues to be used more than a half decade after

its first appearance.

This is arguably because enjoy aja has become a mantra for gaul culture in the way

that Cutler (2003) argues keepin’ it real has been a mantra for hip-hop culture. Cutler (2003,

p. 212, drawing on Rickford & Rickford, 2000) argues that keepin’ it real “exhort[s]

individuals to be true to their roots and not to ‘front’ or pretend to be something they are not”.

Enjoy aja, I argue, encapsulates gaul. Smith-Hefner (2007, p. 198) describes gaul in terms of

“middle-class youth’s heightened concern for casual informality, greater emotional

expressivity, and the communication of a new and constantly evolving popular Indonesian

culture” (Smith-Hefner, 2007, p. 198). Enjoy aja plays a key role in indexing casual

informality. It also speaks to the rejection of the previous generation’s norms. Smith-Hefner

(2007, p. 186) notes that gaul “articulates a rejection of what is viewed as the previous

generation’s orientation toward patrimonialism, formality, and fixed social hierarchy”

(Smith-Hefner, 2007, p. 186). In other words, there is no need to be overly concerned with

such things; rather, one should enjoy aja ‘just enjoy’.

In conclusion, many of Bahasa Gaul’s features are ephemeral but its impact on the

Indonesian language may be more lasting. This is particularly the case due to Bahasa Gaul’s

links to Jakarta Indonesian (cf. Smith-Hefner, 2007). There is increasing reference in the

literature to Colloquial Indonesian (e.g. Englebretson, 2003; Sneddon, 2003; Ewing, 2005;

Djenar, 2008). This variety is discussed without reference to geographical links (Djenar,

   

30    

2008) but it is influenced by Jakarta Indonesian (Sneddon, 2003; Ewing, 2005). The current

paper has shown that the following quote from Djenar (2012, p. 49) is certainly relevant for

Malang, “[t]hat the colloquial Jakartan Indonesian has had a significant influence on the

language of urban youth is unquestionable”.

This paper has taken steps to show the degree to which the impact of Jakarta

Indonesian has been felt in Malang, Indonesia. In doing so, it has established conversation as

among the genres used by young people to construct and respond to the social category gaul.

The dialogic nature of gaul conversation was illustrated on two levels. It was firstly shown

how speakers use Bahasa Gaul to enact and respond to stances drawing on the notion of

intersubjectivity. Secondly, it was shown how speakers mobilise exterior indexicalities

linked to Bahasa Gaul to enact stances which indirectly index gaul. In sum, this paper has

shown how the social category gaul has “culturally recognised, patterned ways of speaking,

or structured cognitive frameworks for engaging in discourse” (cf. Coupland, 2007, p. 15). In

doing so, it has provided a more nuanced understanding of gaul and conversation as a genre.

Glossing conventions The orthography used for the examples generally follows the conventions set out by the 1972 spelling reforms for the Indonesian and Malay languages. Some modifications have been made to account for non-standard pronunciations. This paper follows Leipzig Glossing rules with the following exceptions: APP applicative AT agent trigger prefix COMP comparative DM discourse marker EXIST existential marker NV non-volitional marker PT patient trigger prefix RED reduplication REP repetition STM epistemic stance marker References

   

31    

Adelaar, S. & Prentice, D. (1996). Malay: the national language of Malaysia. In S.A.Wurm, P. Muhlhausler and D. Tyron (Eds.), Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas (pp.729-733). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Agha, A. (2003). The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication, 23: 231- 273. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.

London: Verso. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bauman, R. (2004). A World of Others’ Words: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Intertextuality.

Oxford: Blackwell. Berman, R. (2004). Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text and types of language.

Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (2): 105-124. Boellstorff, T. (2004). Gay language and Indonesia: Registering belonging. Journal of Linguistic

Anthropology, 14(2): 248-268. Bucholtz, M. (2003) Sociolinguistic Nostalgia and the Authentication of Identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(3): 398–416. Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach.

Discourse Studies, 7(4-5): 585-614. Clift, R. (1999). Irony in conversation. Language in Society, 28(4): 523-553. Coupland, N. (2001). Language, situation, and the relational self: theorizing dialect-style in

sociolinguistics. In P. Eckert and J. Rickford (Eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation (pp. 185-210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Cutler, C. (2003). “Keepin’ it real”: White hip-hoppers’ discourses of language, race, and authenticity.

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 13(2): 211-233. Djenar, D.N. (2008). On the development of a colloquial writing style: examining the language of Indonesian teen literature. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde, 164 (2/3): 238– 268. Djenar, D.N. (2012). Almost unbridled: Indonesian youth language and its critics. South East Asia Research, 20(1): pp. 35-51. Djenar, D.N. & Ewing, M. (2012, October). Indonesian Youth Language and Involvement in Print Genres. Paper presented at Grammar and Genre, Turku Finland. Du Bois, J. (1986). Meaning without intention: lessons from divination. In J. Hill & J. Irvine (Eds.),

Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse (pp. 48-71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Du Bois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse

Subjectivity, Evaluation and Interaction (pp.139-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

   

32    

Du Bois, J. & Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). Taking a stance on emotion: affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in diaiogic interaction. Text & Talk, 32(4): 433-451. Eckert, P. (2012). Three Waves of Variation Study: The Emergence of Meaning in the Study of Sociolinguistic Variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41: 87-100. Emka, M. (2007). Kamus Gaul Hare Gene!!! Jakarta: GagasMedia. Englebretson, R. (2003). Searching for Structure: The Problem of Complementation in Colloquial

Indonesian Conversation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Englebretson, R. (2007). Grammatical resources for social purposes: Some aspects of stancetaking in

colloquial Indonesian conversation. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse (pp. 69-110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Errington, J. (1985). Language and Social Change in Java: Linguistic Reflexes of Modernization in a

Traditional Royal Polity. Athens: Ohio University Press. Errington, J. (1986). Continuity and change in Indonesian language development. Journal of Asian

Studies, 45(2): 329-353. Errington, J. (1998). Shifting Languages: Interaction and Identity in Javanese Indonesia. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Ewing, M. (2005). Colloquial Indonesian. In S. Adelaar and N. Himmelmann (Eds.), The

Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar (pp. 227-258). London and New York: Routledge.

Geertz, C. (1960). The Religion of Java. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Geertz, H. (1961). The Javanese Family. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Haddington (2007). Positioning and alignment as activities of stancetaking in news interviews. In R.

Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse (pp. 283-317). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haiman, J. (1998). Talk is Cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. New York:

Oxford University Press. Haikal, M. (2007). Humor & Kamus Gaul. Jakarta: Better Book. Heritage, J. & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action. Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1): 15–38. Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (1988). Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ibrihim, I. (2007). Budaya Populer Sebagai Komunikasi: Dinamika Popscape dan Mediascape di

Indonesia Kontemporer. Yogyakarta: Jalasutra. Johnstone, B. (2009). Stance, style and the linguistic individual. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance:

Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp. 29-52). New York: Oxford.

   

33    

Johnstone, B., Andrus, J. & Danielson, A. (2006). Mobility, indexicality, and the enregisterment of ‘Pittsburghese’. Journal of English Linguistics, 34(2): 77–104. Jurriëns, E. (2009). From monologue to dialogue: radio and reform in Indonesia. Leiden: KITLV Press. Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional

Functions with a Focus on ‘I think’. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In R. Englebretson (Ed.),

Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation and Interaction (pp. 183-220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Keeler, W. (1987). Javanese Shadow Plays, Javanese Selves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press. Keeler, W. (2001). Javanese: A Cultural Approach. Athens: Ohio University for International Studies. Kiesling, S. (2004). Dude. American Speech, 79(3): 281-305. Kiesling, S. (2009). Style as stance: Stance as the explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation.

In A. Jaffe (Ed.) Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp. 171-194). New York: Oxford. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press. Le Page, R.B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to

Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manns, H. (2010). Indonesian slang in Internet chatting. In S. Babatunde, A. Odenbunmi, A. Adetunji

& M. Adedimeji (Eds.), Studies in Slang and Slogans (pp. 71-99). Munich: Lincom Europa. Manns, H. (2011). Stance, style and identity in Java. Unpublished PhD thesis, Monash University,

Melbourne, Australia. Manns, H. (2012). First-person pronominal variation, stance and identity in Indonesia. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 32(4): 435-456. Manns, H. (forthcoming). Scripting radio talk amidst language shift in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication. Mulder, N. (2007). Inside Indonesian Society: Cultural Change in Java. Yogyakarta, Indonesia:

Kanisius.

O'Hanlon, R. (2006). Australian Hip Hop: A Sociolinguistic Investigation. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 26(2), 193-209. Ochs, E. (1990). Indexicality and socialization. In J. Stigler, G. Herdt, & R. Shweder (Eds.), Cultural

Psychology: The Chicago Symposia (pp. 287-308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language

as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 335-358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oetomo, D. (1990). The Bahasa Indonesia of the middle class. Prisma, 50, 68-79. Omoniyi, T. (2009). “So I choose to Do Am Naija Style”: Hip Hop, Language, and Postcolonial

   

34    

Identities. In H. Alim, A. Ibrahim, & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Global Linguistic Flows: Hip Hop Cultures, Youth Identities, and the Politics of Language (pp. 113-138). New York: Routledge.  Pennycook, A. (2003). Global Englishes, Rip Slyme and performativity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4): 513-533.  Rahardja, P. & Chambert-Loir, H. (1988). Kamus Bahasa Prokem. Jakarta: Pustaka Utama Grafiti. Rauniomaa, M. (2007). Stance markers in spoken Finnish: Minun Mielestä and minusta in

assessments. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation and Interaction (pp. 221-252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Redana, B. (1997). Ongkos sosial gaya hidup mutakhir. In I. Ibrahim (Ed.), Lifestyle Ecstasy:

Kebudayaan Pop Dalam Masyarakat Komoditas Indonesia (pp. 52-70). Yogyakarta: Jalasutra. Rickford, R. & Rickford, R. (2000). Spoken Soul: The Story of Black English. New York: John Wiley. Sahertian, D. (2001). Kamus Bahasa Gaul. Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan. Smith-Hefner, N. (2007). Youth language, gaul sociability and the new Indonesian middle class.

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 17(2): 184-203. Smith-Hefner, N. (2009). Language shift, gender, and ideologies of modernity in Central Java,

Indonesia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 19(1): 57-77. Sneddon, J. (2001). Teaching informal Indonesian: Some factors for considerations. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(2): 81-95. Sneddon, J. (2003). The Indonesian Language. Sydney: The University of New South Wales. Sneddon, J. (2006). Colloquial Jakartan Indonesian. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Sutton, R. (1996). Interpreting electronic sound technology in the contemporary Javanese soundscape.

Ethnomusicology, 40(2): 249-268. Tannen, D. (2007). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse

(2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wallach, J. (2008). Modern Noise, Fluid Genres: Popular Music in Indonesia, 1997-2001. Madison,

WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. Wolfowitz, C. (1991). Language Style and Social Space: Stylistic Choice in Suriname Javanese.

Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.